ONCE AGAIN A MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE!!!!!
Calling it marriage would be a first amendment violation....
Let's follow this logic, sounds like fun...
First of all lets review what the Constitution says about religion:
"1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The very first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits Congress (and later through the 14th Amendment, any government entity) from respecting the establishment of religion by forcing the citizenry through the power of government to live by a religious code they do not believe in. The second right listed in the Constitution provides that government cannot force people to exercise a religious belief they do not adhere to or be denied the ability to exercise their religious beliefs by the government. Both of these principles of course are tempered by the fact that exercising ones religion cannot infringe on the rights of others - for example human sacrifices would not be a valid means of exercising ones religion.
So...on to the premises...
Premise:
Because the religious doctrine of some (but not all) religious institutions is that Religious Marriage is between a man and a woman, then the government is required to enforce that doctrine under secular law or it will be in violation of the First Amendment.
All I can say it is absurd on face value and anathema to the very core principles of liberty and freedom, the idea that the government is in place to enforce religious doctrine of selected religious organizations on it's citizens fly's in the very fact of the idea of religious freedom
************************
Secondly, if you define "marriage" as that which exists under religious doctrine and that the government must honor religious doctrine the you create a secondary Constitutional issue. If the secular government is to recognize only religious marriages then you have some houses of worship that only recognize "marriage" as between a man and a woman. However there are other houses of worship that recognize that Religious Marriage can exist between a man and a woman, a man and a man, and a woman and a woman (and in some cases between a man and multiple women).
If the government is required to recognize Religious Marriage because "marriage" is a religious doctrine, then the government should recognize all "marriages" entered into under religious doctrine whether it be man+man, man+man, woman+woman, or man + multiple-women. If the government must not "respect the establishment of religion" by respecting one religious doctrine over another, then even unpopular religious doctrines would have to be recognized as equal. If the government must not restrict the exercise of religion by recognizing certain exercises of religion over another, then even unpopular religious doctrines would have to be recognized as equal.
The above is not the way secular law works of course and is the very reason that Religious Marriage (i.e. religious doctrine) exists as a separate entity from Civil Marriage (under the law).
>>>>
